Walsall Housing Group Limited (202344921)

Decision
Case ID	202344921
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Walsall Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 April 2026

Background

The resident contacted the landlord after her neighbour took down part of the boundary fence that ran alongside her garage. This left a gap between the garage and the rest of the fence. The landlord fitted fencing that covered the gap. However, the resident remained unhappy as it did not reinstate the fence at the side of her garage. She said this had caused damp and mould as her garage was now supporting her neighbour’s garden. The landlord has vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems due to physical and mental health issues.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a boundary dispute, which she felt had caused damp and mould in her property.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a boundary dispute, which she felt had caused damp and mould in her property.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns was good. It took prompt action, engaged with the resident’s neighbour and provided appropriate remedies. However, it did not address her concern about her garage being used as a football goal. Nor did it consider her vulnerabilities in telling her to clean mould from her toilet herself.
The landlord’s complaint responses were generally of a good standard. However, it did not address antisocial behaviour (ASB) concerns she raised when she escalated her complaint. Nor did it recognise its stage 1 response was not within the timeframe of its complaints policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 13 May 2026
2	Compensation order If it has not already done so the landlord must pay the resident directly £75 which its stage 2 response offered and not offset against any arrears.	No later than 13 May 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss the boundary issue. It should: Confirm if she has any current concerns about the exposed garage wall being used as a football goal. If the resident does have any concerns confirm what it can and cannot do to resolve these.	No later than 13 May 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of her toilet. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Assesses the damp and mould reported by the resident. It must produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: The most likely cause of the damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair and resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution. The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 13 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 December 2023	The resident raised her complaint with the landlord. She said: Her neighbour had taken down the boundary fence between her property and theirs. Her neighbour was using their garden as a builder’s yard and for caravan storage. She wanted it to put the fence back up.
03 January 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: It was satisfied it had completed repair works to secure the boundary line between the gardens. Her garage acted as a boundary line, and it would not be installing additional fencing. It did not uphold her complaint.
18 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: Its response read like she had asked it to put up the fence, which she did not do. Her toilet wall was now holding up her neighbour’s garden. It did not explain why it took the landlord 5 visits. The boundary fence belonged to her.
26 February 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: The neighbours work to clear their land was having an upsetting experience on her. It was sorry for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced. It would not be reinstating fencing behind her garage/toilet wall. It was confident that it complied with its legal duties to repair the fence and secure her garden boundary. It was sorry it did not give her legal documents about the boundary, after she had asked it to. It upheld this part of her complaint. Land registry documents do not show who is responsible for the boundary. It has determined there was shared responsibility between her and her neighbour, for the boundary. It was taking legal advice about her neighbour’s repair work close to the boundary line. It would contact her neighbour to arrange an inspection of her garage wall. It would consider its next steps after this and did not uphold this part of her complaint. It considered her toilet to be a non-habitable room. While it found some evidence of condensation in the toilet this could be down to the type of structure. As it had not arranged for a surveyor to inspect her reports of damp, it upheld this part of her complaint. It was sorry it did not tell her that her housing officer was unavailable. It had not identified any member of its staff who was related to her neighbour. It would still take its responsibilities to her seriously even if this was not the case. It had contacted the local authority about her neighbour’s static caravan. They had an enforcement case open about the issue. It offered her £75 compensation. This was made up as follows: £25 for not sending land registry documents. £25 for not arranging for a surveyor to inspect sooner. £25 for its poor communication about her housing officer not being available.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said: The landlord had told her it could not do anything as her neighbour was not one of its tenants. The landlord had taken advantage of her due to her disabilities. She had told the landlord her neighbour became aggressive when she approached them. The issues were affecting her mental health. During its inspection of her toilet, she raised concerns about damp and mould in her bedroom. She said this was due to cracks in her bathroom wall tiles. However, it still hadn’t replaced the tiles.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not consider

The resident told us of concerns she had about the landlord’s handling of repairs to her bathroom. However, this was not part of her complaint. As the landlord has not had opportunity to respond to this through its complaints process, it would not be fair or appropriate for us to consider this matter.

Complaint	Boundary dispute
Finding	Service failure

The landlord visited the resident’s property on 12 December 2023. It inspected the boundary issue after she had reported her neighbour had taken down part of the fence between both properties. This had left a gap between her garage and the fence. Its inspection concluded there was no repair needed as the fence was not its responsibility. There is no evidence that supported its conclusion at that time. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it will protect the value of its housing stock and ensure that the service delivers value for money as well as customer excellence. However, the detriment to the resident was minimal as it did complete a repair to the fence on 21 December 2023.
There is no record that the landlord contacted the resident to tell her about the outcome of its inspection. She contacted it on 14 December 2023. She was unhappy that it had not been to inspect the fencing. This indicates she was unaware of its inspection 2 days earlier. This was a communication and record keeping failure.
The landlord’s records show that it completed repairs to the gap in the boundary fence on 21 December 2023. It also inspected the garage and found there were no signs of structural damage. This was reasonable and shows that it took timely action to resolve the issue.
The resident was unhappy that the landlord did not reinstate the boundary fence along the length of her garage. Its stage 1 response advised that its repair works had secured her boundary and that the garage wall acted as a boundary line. This was reasonable as social landlords have limited resources which they need to use for the benefit of all their residents.
The landlord’s records show on 19 January 2024 it sought legal advice about the boundary issue. Its legal department obtained land registry documents and confirmed there was shared responsibility for the boundary between it and the resident’s neighbour. This was reasonable. Although it did not immediately share this information with the resident, its stage 2 response identified this failure. It offered the resident £25 compensation and sent her the land registry documents on 27 February 2024, which was reasonable.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she said she felt her garage/toilet wall was holding up the neighbour’s garden. She also felt this was causing damp. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the garage on 21 February 2024. This was over 2 months since the resident raised the issue. Its stage 2 response acknowledged the delay and offered the resident £25 compensation. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s records note that its inspection on 21 February 2024 found the garage’s damp proof course to be in a good condition. Its stage 2 response confirmed there was evidence of mould. However, it considered this was because the structure was single skin and originally built as an outbuilding. This was reasonable and shows it addressed the resident’s concerns and provided her with an explanation.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she asked the landlord to provide her with a larger radiator, to remedy the damp in her toilet. Its stage 2 response said the radiator was an appropriate size for the heat output needed in the room and that she should use the window to ventilate the area when appropriate. This was reasonable. It also said its surveyor advised her it would provide her with mould spray for her to clean the area. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow the tenancy agreement. This states it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the structure and outside of the property in repair.While this was not the resident’s main toilet, it knew of her vulnerabilities and it should have considered cleaning the area itself, as a remedy.
The landlord completed a further inspection of the garage on 27 April 2024, as its stage 2 response advised. Its records show it was satisfied there was no structural issues. It confirmed this in a stage 2 follow up letter it sent to the resident on 9 May 2024. It also said it was satisfied the brickwork and mortar of the garage was in good condition and there were no identified concerns such as soil piled up against the boundary garage wall which could increase any risk of damp or mould. This was reasonable and shows it was taking steps to remedy the issue for the resident.
The landlord’s records show that it contacted the resident’s neighbour to discuss the boundary issue on 21 February and 5 March 2024. It arranged access to their garden for its inspections of the garage. It also asked them to tell it if they would be doing any repairs to the fence so it could advise the resident. This was reasonable.
When the resident raised her complaint, she said she felt her neighbours wanted to use her garage wall as a football goal. This was a further reason she wanted the landlord to reinstate the fence. There is no record that the landlord discussed this concern with her neighbour. Its complaint responses did not address this issue either. This was unreasonable.
The resident has said she believed the landlord changed its view on the ownership of the boundary due to a relative of her neighbour working for it. We have not seen any evidence that supports this. The landlord’s records show it was not until 1 February 2024 its legal department confirmed the boundary ownership was shared between it and her neighbour. It was reasonable that its stage 2 response addressed this and said it would take its responsibilities to her seriously even if the neighbour had a relative who worked for it.
The resident told us that she thought the landlord had taken advantage of her because of her disabilities. There is no record in the evidence that indicates the landlord did. The landlord’s stage 2 response addressed the resident’s concerns about the lack of communication from its housing officer. It apologised for this and offered her £25 compensation. This was reasonable.
The £75 compensation the landlord offered the resident was appropriate for the failures it identified. This was in line with our compensation guidance for minor failures that caused the resident distress and inconvenience. However, it did not identify its failure to treat the mould in her toilet directly or address her concerns about her neighbour using the garage as a goal. For these reasons, we have found there was service failure. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and contact her to inspect the toilet for damp and mould and discuss any other concerns she has about the garage wall being exposed to her neighbour. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failures that did not have a wider impact.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. It will send its response within 10 working days of acknowledgement at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Where it is unable to meet its timeframes for a response it will explain the reasons for this and give an expected date for its response, which will not exceed 10 working days without good reason.
The landlord sent acknowledgment at both stages within its published timeframe. This was reasonable.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response 13 working days after its acknowledgement. This was 3 working days over its published timeframe. Although the detriment to the resident was minimal this was still a complaint handling failure, which its stage 2 response did not identify.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response 24 working days after its acknowledgement. However, it advised the resident it needed to extend its investigation by 10 working days on 14 February 2024. Its response was within the revised timeframe which was reasonable.
The landlord’s complaint responses told the resident it had contacted the local authority about her neighbour using their garden for caravan storage. This was reasonable and shows it was working with partner agencies to resolve the issue. The resident has told us that this issue has been resolved.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said if the resident had any future concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB) she should contact it. It is unclear why it did this, as there is no record that the resident had reported the issue as ASB or that the landlord considered it as such. The resident responded to this when she escalated her complaint. She said she felt her neighbour breaking the fence was ASB. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not address this which was not reasonable. It should have considered explaining whether it considered the issue to be ASB or not, to manage the resident’s expectations. While the evidence does not show any other reports of ASB from the resident, this was still a complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s delay in responding at stage one was minor. Its failure to address the ASB issue at stage 2 had a limited impact on the resident as there is no other record of ASB reports. For these reasons we have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. While these were complaint handling failures, we consider that an apology from the landlord is an appropriate redress, in line with our compensation policy.

Learning

It was positive that the landlord sent the resident a letter updating her on the outstanding actions from its stage 2 response. This shows its commitment to ensuring it follows the remedies it offers through to completion. It should continue to take such an approach with any future complaints. However, it should consider making it clear that the letter is not part of its formal complaints process to avoid any potential confusion for residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Overall, the landlord has provided us with detailed records about the issue and its communication with the resident and her neighbour. This has provided us with a clear picture of the actions it took which supports transparency. This was a positive from the landlord.

Communication

The landlord’s overall communication was good. It responded promptly and gave clear and simple explanations to the resident. It identified its poor communication regarding the absence of its housing officer and offered an appropriate remedy. This was positive.